Limited Government Is

Tag Archives: First Amendment

It is clear that the free exchange of opinion that once characterized university life is now being challenged. The avatars of social justice have arrogated to themselves the role of arbiter in the university curriculum. But it hasn’t stopped there. Now monuments of the past are being put through the probity of present standards as one statue after another is in jeopardy of tumbling. Here is a foreshadowing of a “new America”, one in which the evils of the past are to be redressed by the self-appointed czars of the moment.

Where this ends isn’t clear, but I have a strong belief that the revolutionaries in our midst are intent on altering the Constitution converting it into a Red Book of acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

After all, for many the First Amendment is in tatters already. Free speech no longer exists for unpopular speech or “hate speech,” even though it is precisely unpopular expression that the Constitution protects. Hate speech is loathsome, but it is protected speech precisely because any line drawn against it is arbitrary and subject to the will of the censors. Like many, I was appalled at the anticipated Nazi march through Skokie, Illinois (which never happened), but I defended the right of these barbarians to do so as First Amendment expression. As I see it, the danger of censorship was greater than the psychological damage of ugly expression.

For many Americans, the Second Amendment protecting citizens to bear arms must be modified or erased. In the minds of these revisionists guns are the problem fomenting violence in our cities. Despite the obvious point that a gun isn’t a weapon in the hands of St. Francis, but is dangerous if wielded by a felon intent on criminal behavior, gun baners rarely make distinctions.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees that due process will accompany legal charges, indictments or the sequestration of property; in other words life, liberty and property cannot be arbitrarily denied without a legal process that assures the rights of the victim. However, at many universities the due process clause is only honored in the breach. It is often sufficient for an allegation of rape or sexual abuse to be made before the accused is found culpable. Reputations are sometimes destroyed on the basis of empty allegations, but kangaroo courts of this kind have proliferated throughout higher education.

The Tenth Amendment gives to the states the powers that remain without enumeration in the other Amendments. Hence education is one such area that accrues to the state governments. Unfortunately, teachers’ unions want to consolidate power through national organizations and have been pressing in recent years for authority to be vested in the Department of Education exclusively. It is a clear and undeviating attack on federalism which has central and state governments sharing power. For extremists, the mitigating influence of the states is unnecessary.

In the aggregate these reforms and reformers constitute a revolutionary force. Their goal is to shift the organs of national power. They intend to use the vulnerability of the moment to espouse a newly created nation from the political graveyard of the past. America’s Red Guard will determine what one can believe and what is unacceptable. The Color Guard will carry the black flag of revolution and the Founders will be interred for their regressive ideas.

Welcome Comrades to the New World. You have nothing to lose, but your chains. Of course, there are chains you will wear that will be dispensed by the Party. Those who resist will be relieved of all they love. For even love itself is retrograde; either one believes, or one is ostracized. Tolerance is weakness, hate is intensity and good will is cowardice.

The world will be turned upside down with many wishing they were facing downward. For those who have seen signals of the New World, it is a dark place bereft of an enlightened Constitution.

For all the talk of how President Trump is insensitive or racist, how about President Robert E. Lee’s statue supporting a mosque at Ground Zero? That was only nine years after September 11, 2001 making it more insensitive than Robert E. Lee’s statue staying. They argued that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, and if you oppose this mosque, then you don’t support the First Amendment or Freedom of Religion. Yet the First Amendment protects these statues. President Trump stood up against the mosque while President Obama supported it. Where were the Establishment people calling Obama these names?

House Resolution 569 was introduced on December 17th by the Democrats and it’s dangerous. It’s self-described purpose is “condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.”

There is no proof of a war against Muslims in this country. Racial hate and anti-semitism are far worse problems, but that won’t stop leftists from using it as an excuse to put in laws that damage or destroy the First Amendment.

Democrats have been trying to ban hate speech and now plan to exploit Muslims to achieve their goals.

The measure panders for votes from the Muslim community, a community of people who are conservative and don’t even belong with these leftists. It’s all a prelude to the death of the First Amendment.

Resolutions of this nature have a tendency to be reintroduced later as binding legislation to be forwarded to the Senate. The introduction of this resolution is not yet newsworthy, but it will be if it emerges intact from committee to be voted on by the whole House says Edward Cline at the Rule of Reason.

People behind the resolution include: Keith Ellison, a Democrat and Muslim from Minnesota; Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Democrat and chairman of the Democratic National Committee; Charles Rangel, New York Democrat; and Alan Grayson, a Democrat from Florida.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently said that she would prosecute hate speech against Muslims though it’s obviously in violation of the First Amendment.

Day after Muslim terrorist attacks in California, US Attorney General says jail Americans who don’t stand with Islam

Speaking barely a day after the horrific terrorist attack in California, Obama-appointed Attorney General Loretta Lynch said at the annual Muslim Advocates annual Dinner that critics of Islam “will be prosecuted” if speech about Islam “edges” towards violence:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Thursday warned that the Justice Department could take aggressive action against people whose anti-Muslim rhetoric “edges towards violence and told the Muslim community that â€œwe stand with you in this.”

Lynch made it clear that she shares those concerns, but vowed to use the DOJ to protect Muslims from discrimination and violence. Noting the rise in violence against Muslims and mosques in the wake of the Paris attacks, Lynch added that, “When we talk about the First amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”

“My message not just to the Muslim community but to all Americans is ‘We cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on,'” Lynch said.

On the Muslim Advocates web site advertising the dinner and Ms. Lynch as the keynote speaker, it says under her photo that she is going to discuss the “priorities of the U. S. Department of Justice, particularly its efforts to combat anti-Muslim hate and discrimination”:

If you think it’s bad that Obama is threatening YOUR right to free speech, it’s not going to get any better if Obama gets his way in bringing tens of thousands of Muslims into the country as “refugees.”

When the White House announces an initiative, you can be sure it’s going to be either inimical to the United States, unconstitutional—or both.

Asst. AG John Carlin’s announcement on October 14th, that the Justice Department is creating a new position of “Domestic Terrorism Counsel,” shows signs of both. Its purpose is to combat the “real and present threat” of domestic extremism, he said. He ominously cited, as causes for concern: “anti-government views, racism, bigotry, anarchy and other despicable beliefs”—which begs the question: Just who will select those showing cause for concern?

His declaration is more ominous because he implied that the DOJ would be relying upon the Southern Policy Legal Center (SPLC) for help in this new mission. In fact, the announcement was co-hosted by SPLC. This raises the concern that the SPLC will help select those suspected of “despicable beliefs.”

The Supreme Court has denied an appeal from former California high school students who were ordered to turn their American flag T-shirts inside out during a celebration of the Cinco de Mayo holiday at school.

The justices did not comment Monday in leaving in place an appellate ruling that found that school officials acted appropriately because their concerns about racial violence outweighed students’ freedom of expression rights. Administrators feared the American-flag shirts would enflame the passions of Latino students celebrating the Mexican holiday.

The onetime students at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, California, argued that school officials gave a “heckler’s veto” to the objecting students.

The brother and sister who won a landmark Vietnam era student speech case at the Supreme Court also supported the appeal.

Here’s an example of hilarious and good-natured ribbing, targeting liberals and President Obama.

Liberals get outraged whenever you criticize them, their actions, or their policies. They also frequently resort to a disgusting tactics to try to get their way.

This person’s bumper sticker is a great example of using the First Amendment to fight back against a bad government. Such political speech is the right of every American. This driver just did it in an unusually creative and funny way. Kudos to the owner of the car and bumper sticker.

The bumper sticker says, “Obama sucks, and so do liberal cowards who steal my stickers.”

There is no indication of how to get one for yourself, although they might be available somewhere online.